Supreme Court defies Trump’s foreign aid freeze with a narrow 5-4 ruling, ordering immediate release of $1.9 billion in international assistance despite strong dissent from conservative justices.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Trump administration must unfreeze approximately $1.9 billion in foreign aid payments
- Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the three liberal justices in the majority
- Justice Samuel Alito issued a strongly worded dissent questioning a district judge’s authority to compel government spending
- The case stems from a lower court ruling by Biden-appointed Judge Amir Ali, who blocked Trump’s attempt to cancel foreign aid contracts
- The Trump administration had paused the aid for 90 days as part of a broader plan to cut foreign spending
Split Decision Challenges Presidential Authority
In a contentious 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court has ordered the Trump administration to immediately release $1.9 billion in foreign aid payments that had been frozen. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett broke ranks with their conservative colleagues to join the Court’s three liberal justices in the majority. The ruling maintains a lower court order requiring the administration to honor foreign aid agreements made prior to President Trump’s return to office.
The Supreme Court’s majority emphasized that existing agreements must be honored, sending the case back to the district court to clarify specific payment obligations. The ruling stated that the district court should “clarify what obligations the Government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order, with due regard for the feasibility of any compliance timelines.”
Unreal. Supreme Court mandates your salary must be spent this year on transgender dance festivals in Botswana. https://t.co/9UHyvDXxX8
— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) March 5, 2025
Strong Conservative Dissent
Justice Samuel Alito authored a blistering dissent, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. Alito expressed disbelief at the Court’s decision to allow a single district judge to dictate the disbursement of billions in taxpayer funds.
“Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars? The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No,’ but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned,” Alito wrote.
The dissenting justices raised serious questions about judicial overreach and the constitutional separation of powers. The dispute highlights ongoing tensions between the judicial branch and executive authority, particularly regarding control over federal spending decisions.
Lower Court Battle
The case originated with US District Judge Amir Ali, a Biden appointee, who blocked the Trump administration from canceling foreign aid contracts. The administration had implemented a 90-day pause on these payments as part of a broader government efficiency initiative, but Judge Ali ruled this caused “tremendous harm” and demanded the funds be disbursed by a specific deadline.
Acting U.S. Solicitor General Sarah Harris had argued that the payment order might violate executive branch authorities, and the Justice Department claimed the timeline for compliance was “impossible.” Before the final ruling, Chief Justice Roberts had temporarily paused the lower court’s decision.
Broader Foreign Aid Strategy
The legal battle unfolds against the backdrop of the Trump administration’s plans to drastically reduce foreign spending. Reports indicate the administration aims to cut approximately 90% of USAID foreign aid contracts and slash $60 billion in foreign aid spending overall. This approach aligns with President Trump’s campaign promises to prioritize domestic spending over international assistance.
Critics of these cuts warn of potential economic harm, reputational damage, and security risks. Scott Greytak of U.S. Transparency International has highlighted the risk of increased corruption abroad and heightened competition from China in regions where American influence might wane. The Supreme Court’s decision represents a significant setback to the administration’s efforts to immediately reduce foreign aid spending.
